You could frame a question your way and get “no” even more than the former would get a yes - at least the first example mentions firearms and background checks.
Remind me... is it good practice to put the name of something in the actual definition of itself?
You might not like it, but “universal background checks” are a tax on a right, a defecto national registry, a future ban option by simply denying all transfers of X type gun in the NICS system at any arbitrary time, and entirely unenforceable by default up until people start winding up with guns they couldn’t possibly have received legally over time, oh, and almost completely unrelated to crime as it does nothing for stolen guns, straw purchases, or existing illegal transfers which are the predominant ways criminals obtain weapons. You could also admit that no state that passed “UBC” style checks has seen a reduction in crime as an effect.
I apologize for bringing facts to an emotional topic.
Taxes exist on lots of rights, as do fines. Try to hold a rally in any town center without a permit. If being a gun owner who's registered not being a part of a well organized militia? Its interesting how you jump from extremely broad sweeping concepts into extremely detailed criticisms of proposals.
>Try to hold a rally in any town center without a permit.
Nope. You are now not only misunderstanding 2A, but 1A as well. A government body can not require a fee for a protest that does not impact normal property function (traffic, police, park use) and that fee can not exceed the actual costs. Nor can a government deny an organization based on content grounds. This example is bad.
If there are taxes on "lots" of other rights, and you used a poor example, I look forward to other examples to try and see your point of view.
>If being a gun owner who's registered not being a part of a well organized militia?
Well, because MILITIA means "any able bodied adult who can fight for defense of self or state", I am a member of the militia, and unfortunately so are you.
The words you are looking for aren't "well organized" but the text of 2A is "well regulated" which according to Oxford 1800 means "Well training, in good working order". Not "lots of regulations" and not as you imply "well organized" like a milita requires a phone tree if someone's going to be out sick on war days.
>Its interesting how you jump from extremely broad sweeping concepts into extremely detailed criticisms of proposals.
It's interesting how when presented with ACTUAL EFFECTS of a proposal (try me on any of them and I'll school you) you chose instead to wholly believe the propaganda. Which is exactly what it is, I mean... Who could ever be against "Universal Background Checks"!? Those have to be good thing and can't possibly be a tax on a right, an avenue for defacto ban, unenforceable, and an unconstitutional restriction on the free trade of personal property covered under an explicitly enumerated right.
